From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srinivas Pandruvada Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] acpi: cppc: Allow build with ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS config Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:53:16 -0700 Message-ID: <1471020796.3745.11.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1470874646-70570-1-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> <1470874646-70570-2-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> <20160812091337.GA7017@arm.com> <44dbbac5-92e6-d4f9-df92-50e1129d2734@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:42448 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752301AbcHLQxR (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:53:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Hoan Tran , "Prakash, Prashanth" Cc: Alexey Klimov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux acpi , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ashwin Chaugule , Sudeep Holla On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 09:32 -0700, Hoan Tran wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Prakash, Prashanth > wrote: > > > > Hi Alexey, > > > > On 8/12/2016 3:13 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote: > > > > > > (adding Sudeep and Prashanth in c/c) > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:17:22PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Some newer x86 platforms have support for both _CPC and _PSS > > > > object. So > > > > kernel config can have both ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS and > > > > ACPI_CPPC_LIB. So remove > > > > restriction for ACPI_CPPC_LIB to build only when > > > > ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is not > > > > defined. > > > > Also for legacy systems with only _PSS, we shouldn't bail out > > > > if > > > > acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is also > > > > defined. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada > > > ntel.com> > > > > --- > > > >  drivers/acpi/Kconfig            | 1 - > > > >  drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 5 ++++- > > > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > index 445ce28..c6bb6aa 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ config ACPI_MCFG > > > >  config ACPI_CPPC_LIB > > > >      bool > > > >      depends on ACPI_PROCESSOR > > > > -    depends on !ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > > >      select MAILBOX > > > >      select PCC > > > >      help > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > index 0553aee..0e0b629 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > @@ -245,8 +245,11 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct > > > > acpi_device *device) > > > >              return 0; > > > > > > > >      result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr); > > > > -    if (result) > > > > +    if (result) { > > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS > > > >              return -ENODEV; > > > > +#endif > > > > +    } > > > > > > > >      if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() == > > > > &acpi_idle_driver) > > > >              acpi_processor_power_init(pr); > > > If PSS is not defined and kernel fails to probe CPPC then why we > > > should not > > > execute acpi_processor_power_init()? > > Returning on cppc probe failure looks like a bug. We can just print > > a warning and continue to acpi_processor_power_init(). > Yes, it is. We should continue. I saw an issue about that. If the > CPPC > probe fails, CPUidle can NOT be registered. I wanted to keep the existing functionality as is. But I can submit another patch on top of it to ignore cppc probe failure. Thanks, Srinivas > Thanks > Hoan > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Prashanth > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux- > > acpi" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html